Evolve

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with one that Chance cannot be a factor as described among the mechanism of natural selection of evolution. Right, please?
Either it could be chance or selection, I understand. Right, please?

Or both, off course.

Mutation is random. "chance", if you will, although that words comes with some baggage that isn't really appropriate here. It implies "preferred outcomes".

Selection is not random.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it an acknowledgment that one doesn't have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?

Why would anyone develop their own personal methodology, when there is already a known methodology (science) that does the job better then any other methodology that has ever been tried before?

Off course, if you think you have such a methodology that does a better job, by all means: share it and show how it does a better job.

As you may well expect, I am not holding my breath.

Further, did one use this in-built correcting mechanism of science to test reality of Atheism

No claims are associated with atheism, so there is nothing there to test.
Theism is the claim.

 

[Valjean]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
I understand that Atheism don't have any collective one, please. Right, please?

Is it an acknowledgment that one doesn't have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
Further, did one use this in-built correcting mechanism of science to test reality of Atheism , please? Right, please?
Regards

What does atheism have to do with this?

Fact: people are bad at knowing reality. We use mental short-cuts, we perceive patterns and connections where there are none and do not naturally analyse complex situations very well.
This is true of atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, &al. It has nothing to do with one's belief system, it's in our nature; it's how our brains are wired.

For thousands of years people made little progress in understanding the world, and religion was no help. If anything its conservatism usually retarded progress.
Atheism, by the way, is a lack of religion. It has no doctrine, values or social system that might be threatened by new ideas lifestyles.

It was not till we developed advanced mathematics and the scientific method that our understanding of reality began to grow quickly.

Science is the artificial, 'collective' methodology that got us to the moon, created the computer in front of you, healed you when sick, and enabled us to predict the weather.

Science is the best method of knowing reality. What other method has ever worked so well?

 

[gnostic]

No theory in science is ever considered "proven". Only supported by evidence.

Is surprising how many creationists don't understand this.

Or don't want understand this.

They keep demanding for proof or to prove something, only demonstrated how very little they understand science.

 

[Tiberius]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
I understand that Atheism don't have any collective one, please. Right, please?

Is it an acknowledgment that one doesn't have any methodology of one's own of knowing reality, please?
Further, did one use this in-built correcting mechanism of science to test reality of Atheism , please? Right, please?

Regards

I'm sorry, when has anyone said that atheism is scientifically proven?

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry, when has anyone said that atheism is scientifically proven?

...and, what would there be to prove?

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm sorry, when has anyone said that atheism is scientifically proven?

Thanks for acknowledging that Atheism is not proven, it is based on just conjecture. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

...and, what would there be to prove?

That Atheism is correct, Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What does atheism have to do with this?

Fact: people are bad at knowing reality. We use mental short-cuts, we perceive patterns and connections where there are none and do not naturally analyse complex situations very well.
This is true of atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, &al. It has nothing to do with one's belief system, it's in our nature; it's how our brains are wired.

For thousands of years people made little progress in understanding the world, and religion was no help. If anything its conservatism usually retarded progress.
Atheism, by the way, is a lack of religion. It has no doctrine, values or social system that might be threatened by new ideas lifestyles.

It was not till we developed advanced mathematics and the scientific method that our understanding of reality began to grow quickly.

Science is the artificial, 'collective' methodology that got us to the moon, created the computer in front of you, healed you when sick, and enabled us to predict the weather.

Science is the best method of knowing reality. What other method has ever worked so well?

Valjean wrote, "Science is the best method of knowing reality."

Has Science ever claimed that or it is just a slogan of Atheism for their incorrect self-assurance/affirmation, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Valjean wrote, "Science is the best method of knowing reality."

Has Science ever claimed that or it is just a slogan of Atheism for their incorrect self-assurance/affirmation, please? Right friend, please?
Regards

There is no "Atheism" and no slogan.
What is this obsession with atheism? You seem to see it as some sort of movement or community or political opinion generator.
"Self assurance?" "Validation?" What does this have to do with atheism?

Science is clearly the most productive research methodology in human history. How is this not obvious?
What else would account for mankind's explosive increase in knowledge over the past century or so? What else is universally accepted? What else is so tested and validated? What else has been so productive?

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks for acknowledging that Atheism is not proven, it is based on just conjecture. Right friend, please?

Regards

By the same metric, neither is any religion.

Science, on the other hand, has a great deal of support, and so far it shows no indication that religion is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for acknowledging that Atheism is not proven, it is based on just conjecture. Right friend, please?

Regards

Nope. What makes you think that atheism is built on conjecture? It appears that you are trying to make up your own version of atheism again.

 

[Valjean]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Thankse for acknowledging that Atheism is not proven, it is based on just conjecture. Right friend, please?
Regards

There is nothing to prove, atheism is a default, a blank slate.
Again, you seem to think atheism is some sort of belief or doctrine. It is not. There is no doctrine or belief to prove, or even to speculate about.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is nothing to prove, atheism is a default, a blank slate.
Again, you seem to think atheism is some sort of belief or doctrine. It is not. There is no doctrine or belief to prove, or even to speculate about.

Valjean wrote, " atheism is a default ".

Kindly give evidence from Science that "atheism is a default", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Valjean wrote, " atheism is a default ".

Kindly give evidence from Science that "atheism is a default", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Why would you ask a scientific reason for that? You need to read up on the burden of proof.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why would you ask a scientific reason for that? You need to read up on the burden of proof.

Because Atheism figure Science/Scientific Method for everything, please?
Why ask for evidence of G-d in terms of Science/Scientific Method when G-d needs no evidence in terms of Science/Scientific Method, at all, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because Atheism figure Science/Scientific Method for everything, please?
Why ask for evidence of G-d in terms of Science/Scientific Method when G-d needs no evidence in terms of Science/Scientific Method, at all, please. Right, please?

Regards

Nope. Try again.

And God needs evidence, it need not be scientific, it only needs to be reliable. No such evidence seems to exist.

 

[Valjean]

Valjean wrote, " atheism is a default ".

Kindly give evidence from Science that "atheism is a default", please. Right friend, please?

Please read up on what a default is. Science has nothing to do with it.

Because Atheism figure Science/Scientific Method for everything, please?

No. Atheism isn't a "thing" that figures anything. It's not an investigational modality. It has no opinions about anything.
This has been explained to you a hundred times Paarsurrey. Why can you not grasp the concept?

Why ask for evidence of G-d in terms of Science/Scientific Method when G-d needs no evidence in terms of Science/Scientific Method, at all, please. Right, please?

Wrong.
Why would such a claim not need evidence? If you claim something exists, do you expect anyone to believe you if there is no evidence of the thing?

If I claimed a family of elves lived in a rock pile, would you believe me if you saw no evidence of them?

 

[Tiberius]

Valjean wrote, " atheism is a default ".

Kindly give evidence from Science that "atheism is a default", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Every person who follows a religion must be educated about that religion. People do not come up with the idea of Christianity by themselves. Someone has to tell them about Christianity and claim it is true.

Without such exposure to religious belief, a person will not become religious. At most, they could get some vague form of deism, but that's it.

 

[Valjean]

Every person who follows a religion must be educated about that religion. People do not come up with the idea of Christianity by themselves. Someone has to tell them about Christianity and claim it is true.

Without such exposure to religious belief, a person will not become religious. At most, they could get some vague form of deism, but that's it.

We are born atheists; born blank slates. Any subsequent religious programming is learned.